RUGMINI AMMAL DEAD Vs. V NARAYANA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by which the judgment of the learned Single judge was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit. Along with counter-affidavit photocopy of the agreement of lease dated 6.1.1994 was annexed. Thereafter Rugmini Ammal filed CMP No.35930 of 1998. The contentions taken in the CMP was that the purported agreement of lease is a forged document. It was further stated that she sought the opinion of Professor B.B. Kashyap, a renowned handwriting and finger print expert. The signatures in the purported lease agreement, Exh. R4(a) was compared with the admitted signatures of Durairaj Reddiar in Ext. P7. The expert gave his opinion, the copy of which was produced as Exh.P18. According to it the signatures in Exh.R4(a) did not tally with the admitted signatures. Hence the handwriting expert was of the opinion that the five disputed signatures were not written by the writer of the admitted signatures.